the long-term effect would be to destroy the spammers' business model?
Uhh, WHAT?
The spammers business model is "use email to steal as much money from everyone as possible." It has no "long term".
Spammers don't care about keeping their customers happy, so attempting to use this to destroy their business by making their customers unhappy is doomed to failure.
Looking for a downside to this plan . . . still looking . . . Nope. I can't see one.
Then you're not looking hard enough.. this will encourage spammers, because they'll get more 'hits', and be able to verify which email addresses are valid and which aren't.
Sure I do. I paid for it, this copy is mine to do with as I please, including selling it to someone else.
and the license is not transferable.
What if I didn't agree to the 'license'? Then it doesn't matter if its transferable or not. It's not like I can't use the software if I don't agree to it (contrary to what the hardware vendor might say.)
Have you ever installed an ATAPI CD burner? Not exactly plug-and-play.
True enough - when I installed mine, I was pissed that I had to add config options to LILO and then reboot..
nVidia GeForce card?
Only once - and it was a no-brainer.
Scanner?
Yes - no problem.. SANE worked like a champ.
Web cam?
Yes - again, no problem (Logitech Quickcam).. you just plug it in, and run your application. We set up Linux on a box in our office for it, it took all of an hour (including installing Linux) after our MCSEs screwing around in Windows for a week. Then we added a second one to the same box, and it (again) worked no problem. Just plug it in.
When I get a webcam or CD burner and install it on Window, I pop the CD in, click 'Next >' a whole bunch of times and bammo, working hardware, software and all.
In my experience, this is only the case in the most simple of circumstances. The more you have on your system, the bigger the chances are that it won't work - and when it doesn't, you have _zero_ chance of fixing it.
Contrast this with Linux, where in the rare case that something goes wrong, you're given information on what it was, and you have the ability to actually fix the problem.
We view IBM's counterclaim filing today as an effort to distract attention from its flawed Linux business model
I'm sorry, but _WHAT_?!?!?!
I think you need to look up "flawed" in a dictionary. Your Linux business model was flawed (ie. you screwed it up and didn't make any money on it.) IBM's Linux business model is working just fine - they're making boatloads of cash.
It repeats the same unsubstantiated allegations made in Red Hat's filing earlier this week
You mean like telling people there is SCO code in the Linux kernel, but refusing to tell anyone where?
The core issue is about the value of intellectual property in an Internet age
Translation: "We're fucked, and we know it. So we're gonna blame 'the internet' for our problems now - just like the RIAA... maybe it will make people think that Linux users are a bunch of dirty pirates."
IBM urges its customers to use non-warranted, unprotected software.
So you're saying that your software comes with a warranty?
This software violates SCO's intellectual property rights in UNIX
I'm sorry, what was it you were saying about "unsubstantiated allegations" a few sentences back?
If IBM wants customers to accept the risks of the GPL, it should indemnify them against that risk.
And if you want people to accept the risks of YOUR license, you should indemnify them against that risk. Hmm, but you're not doing that either, are you?
The continuing refusal to provide customer indemnification is the truest measure of IBM's belief in its recently filed claims.
Why do you continue to say that IBM should do things that you're unwilling to do yourself? How about "lead by example"?
SCO has shipped these products for many years, in some cases for nearly two decades, and this is the first time that IBM has ever raised an issue about patent infringement in these products.
So, it's OK for you to infringe on IBM's intellectual property, but it's not OK for someone else to allegedly infringe on yours? (Hint: IBM has provided proof that you're infringing - why do you not provide proof?)
if the only security a system has is based on the fact that nobody can see the code, I'd say that system is hosed. I highly doubt voting software would fall into this category.
OK, so you highly doubt it. What proof do you have to back up your suspicions?
None.
Because the software is closed source, you - as a member of the voting public, and arguable one of the most important players - have no proof that they have any sort of security at all.
That's pretty much the whole point.
It's unfortunate that obscuring code has taken on the negative connotation of "hiding bugs." That's not always the case.
You're right - it's also good for hiding design flaws. And that's all it's good for.
Keeping the inner workings of a system secret is a valid security measure
No, it isn't. Keeping the inner workings of a system secret does nothing but keep the inner workings secret. It does nothing to ensure the security of a product, and in fact reduces the security of the product, by reducing the number of people who might be able to find (and fix) flaws in the system, and by lulling the vendor into believing that they're doing something effective, when in fact they're not.
http://spf.pobox.com describes an elegant anti spam solution
No, it really doesn't. For starters, any site that starts off by saying "SMTP has a security hole in that it allows any sender to use any email address" is too clueless to know anything about SMTP. (Hint: it's not a security hole - it's there for a reason.)
domain owners designate sending mail exchangers in DNS, so that SMTP servers can distinguish legitimate mail from spam by verifying sender domain against client IP
Ahh, OK, so how does this stop spam? All it does is force a spammer to register and set up a domain before they send spam - which I hardly think will stop spammers in their tracks.
There's just as much free Windows support out there as linux.
Not true.
I can (and do) support Linux for free for a number of friends/family members.
If there is a bug fix they need/want fixed, I can fix it (and have) for them because I have the source code.
Only MS can provide this level of support, and you have to pay BIG $$$ for it. Compare this with the number of people who can provide the same level of support for Linux. Then compare the number of people who would be able to do it for free.
"How dare you counter our frivolous claims with an honest-to-goodness lawsuit based on real facts!?!?!"
Re:not the answer - you got that right!
on
Replacing SMTP?
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I think locking down SMTP servers and requiring verified & correct return addresses would go a long way toward curbing spam.
OK, so imagine (in a perfect world) that everybody has 100% locked down SMTP servers, and there is an addition to SMTP that requires verified and correct return addresses on every email (regardless of the problems that such verification would cause.)
What's to stop a spammer from running his/her own mailserver (you know, like they do today), and providing 100% verified and correct email addresses on all the spam they send you?
The answer I've heard from people who've proposed the same thing as you is that you'd just start a blacklist..
So I ask: How is this any different from what we have today?
implement the technologies that are already out there
The problem is that spam is not a technological problem - it's a social one. And you can't solve a social problem with technology.
It's too bad that record companies are now "solving" the problem by giving us this "one volume fits all" compression now. The ideal solution might be for car stereos to start including some sort of compression circuitry so that you can hear more of a tune over the road noise, but you get to hear it in its full dynamic glory at home.
It's kinda funny, but I was thinking about this just the other day while listening to "Dragula" on the way to work..
After the first verse there's a 4 beat pause, and then a crash, and the crash has nowhere near the effect it should - I always find myself reaching for the volume knob and cranking it right at the pause..
If my car had compression circuitry, I'd probably turn it off:o)
You realize most EULAs cover distribution as the major point to the license, right?
No, they don't.
Go read some.
I did. Nowhere do they say that anything about the right to distribte copies of the software (except to reiterate that you can't.)
How does distributing not constitute using the software for something
How can you ask this? This question is so seriously flawed that I have to wonder how you managed to turn on your computer in the first place.
USING something is not the same way as DISTRIBUTING it, in the same way that DRIVING A CAR is not the same as SELLING it.
If I distribute it, I am using the contents of the software by placing it on some form of media and sending it off.
No, YOU MOST CERTAINLY ARE NOT. If the software (for example) is a spreadsheet, are you ENTERING DATA INTO IT?!?!?! NO!
Jeebus, how the hell do you manage to dress yourself in the morning?
And (again) you keep ignoring the parts of my argument that you simply can't refute - THE GPL EXPLICITLY DISCLAIMS any coverage regarding "use" of the software.
Because you don't think so.
And just because you think it is so doesn't mean that it is.
So, I guess all the lawyers who define it as a legal EULA are wrong
"ALL THE LAWYERS"!?!??! Which "ALL THE LAWYERS" are you talking about? Please, list "ALL THE LAWYERS" who have read and understood the GPL, and think that it's an EULA.
Certainly the LAWYERS AT THE EFF don't think it's an EULA. Where's your list of the ones who do?
That's because analogies are retarded and unneccessary.
Only to people like you who can't understand them, or can't refute them (or both.)
If you actually had a valid argument, you wouldn't need to use an analogy.
But I _DO_ have a valid argument - and used the analogy to support it. As someone else pointed out, if it was so flawed, you'd point out why it was so flawed.
Notice how the BSA goes after people who use software?
Notice how the BSA goes after people who illegaly copy software. Again, copying, not using. They don't care if you use it or not, they care if you copy it.
Incorrect. The GPL is an end-user license agreement.
No, you are incorrect. The GPL explicitly disavows being a USER agreement. It is a DISTRIBUTION agreement. There is a huge difference between using something and distributing it.
If they have software that infringes on the copyright and IP claims of another party, they will be liable for what is in their possession.
No, they won't. They received the software in good faith. I note how you conveniently dismissed my argument about the New York Times, as it directly covers this.
If they weren't copying anything, how did it get on their hard drive?
Copying for personal use (such as putting it on your hard drive) is expressly allowed under copyright law. (It's called 'fair use'.) Since they received the software in good faith, they would not be liable.
Notice how the RIAA doesn't go after people who download sogns via P2P? They go after the people who share the songs.
Linux enduser license agreements are an 'as is' contract... Linux users aren't protected from copyright or intellectual-property infringement claims...
First, there are no "Linux enduser license agreements" (except perhaps the one from Caldera), so whoever wrote this knows jack about shit.
Second, even if there were Linux EULAs, it would still be irrelevant, because he's saying "the EULA doesn't protect you from copyright or IP claims" - all the while ignoring the fact that people would be immune anyway, as they're not copying anything.
If the New York Times got sued for plagarism and lost, would that make it's readers liable? Of course not. This is really no different.
at least one lawyer thinks users could be liable
No, actually - at least one lawyer, who doesn't have a clue about the facts in the case, thinks that an EULA (which doesn't exist) wouldn't stop liability, when standard property-rights laws would.
I work at a primarily Windows shop - our servers (except one) are all Linux, and the desktops (except mine) are all Windows. I've used Linux (exclusively) on my desktop for 5 years.
The job of IT is to support the organization, not cripple it.
But it's OK if the users cripple it? Sorry, that just doesn't fly.
If users are setting up insecure Linux machines, you work with them to bring them up to snuff.
No, you make them get management's permission, then you set it up securely for them.
Users should not be making decisions like this on their own. At a minimum, they need management's permission and knowledge, and management would weigh the pros and cons, and (hopefully) make an informed decision (in my workplace, that would entail management coming to ask me if it's OK - I'd say yes, of course:o)
It's ultimately self-destructive if users are allowed to do whatever they want with company hardware, and expect IT to clean up after them if they're found out. Everybody should be working towards the same goal.
If this is so basic then why do SCO make such claims?
Because they have nothing to lose.
NOTHING about SCO's position makes sense. They're fucked, they know it, and they're trying a "hail mary" to see if they can stay afloat long enough to drive the share price up so they can dump their stock and have enough to retire on.
I don't think the minor semantic issues invalidate my point
It's not a "minor semantic issue".
If you buy a book, and it turns out that the author is guilty of plagarism, does that mean you're liable?
No, it doesn't. As long as you're not making copies of the book (which would be illegal anyway), the plagarized authour would have no legal recourse against you.
Software is more like a book than a stereo - it's covered by the same laws, in fact. So your argument doesn't hold water.
While I agree that the previous poster is overzealous, there is a kernel of truth in some of what he says.
You are IT. You are present to help workers get their damn work done, not to push some random personal agenda. If you wipe an entire system and kill that employee's work, you are a serious impediment to getting work done
In most companies, the standard OS is hardly a "personal agenda" - and the worker that installs a new OS on his/her computer without authorization is hardly "getting work done".
Most large companies I know don't allow you to keep your work on your local machine, as it makes all kinds of problems for backups, upgrades, and hardware trouble. Instead employees save all of their work to a central fileserver, which gets backed up on a regular basis. Re-imaging a machine is not a big deal. Even the place I work now (total of 20 employees) does this.
WTF does the OS have to do with this?
If the sysadmins don't know Linux, then they won't be able to fix the breakin.
The funny thing is that when I set it up I named it 'Joe' and then I set up the networking using dhcp.... Yep, corporate dns now has an entry for joe.MyCompany.com!
Slashdot Mirror
the long-term effect would be to destroy the spammers' business model?
Uhh, WHAT?
The spammers business model is "use email to steal as much money from everyone as possible." It has no "long term".
Spammers don't care about keeping their customers happy, so attempting to use this to destroy their business by making their customers unhappy is doomed to failure.
Looking for a downside to this plan . . . still looking . . . Nope. I can't see one.
Then you're not looking hard enough.. this will encourage spammers, because they'll get more 'hits', and be able to verify which email addresses are valid and which aren't.
it is software that someone made and without it the box is useless.
Yes, but it's software that the company has already been paid for. Why should they be paid again?
your software license is nontransferrable ...
:o)
folding it up into a little square and putting it in a pendant. Give this to your wife as a gift.
Wouldn't that also be a violation?
You don't own it
Sure I do. I paid for it, this copy is mine to do with as I please, including selling it to someone else.
and the license is not transferable.
What if I didn't agree to the 'license'? Then it doesn't matter if its transferable or not. It's not like I can't use the software if I don't agree to it (contrary to what the hardware vendor might say.)
Hello pot, this is kettle. You're black.
Not quite - this is a case of the pot calling the refrigerator black.
Have you ever installed an ATAPI CD burner? Not exactly plug-and-play.
True enough - when I installed mine, I was pissed that I had to add config options to LILO and then reboot..
nVidia GeForce card?
Only once - and it was a no-brainer.
Scanner?
Yes - no problem.. SANE worked like a champ.
Web cam?
Yes - again, no problem (Logitech Quickcam).. you just plug it in, and run your application. We set up Linux on a box in our office for it, it took all of an hour (including installing Linux) after our MCSEs screwing around in Windows for a week. Then we added a second one to the same box, and it (again) worked no problem. Just plug it in.
When I get a webcam or CD burner and install it on Window, I pop the CD in, click 'Next >' a whole bunch of times and bammo, working hardware, software and all.
In my experience, this is only the case in the most simple of circumstances. The more you have on your system, the bigger the chances are that it won't work - and when it doesn't, you have _zero_ chance of fixing it.
Contrast this with Linux, where in the rare case that something goes wrong, you're given information on what it was, and you have the ability to actually fix the problem.
We view IBM's counterclaim filing today as an effort to distract attention from its flawed Linux business model
I'm sorry, but _WHAT_ ?!?!?!
I think you need to look up "flawed" in a dictionary. Your Linux business model was flawed (ie. you screwed it up and didn't make any money on it.) IBM's Linux business model is working just fine - they're making boatloads of cash.
It repeats the same unsubstantiated allegations made in Red Hat's filing earlier this week
You mean like telling people there is SCO code in the Linux kernel, but refusing to tell anyone where?
The core issue is about the value of intellectual property in an Internet age
Translation: "We're fucked, and we know it. So we're gonna blame 'the internet' for our problems now - just like the RIAA... maybe it will make people think that Linux users are a bunch of dirty pirates."
IBM urges its customers to use non-warranted, unprotected software.
So you're saying that your software comes with a warranty?
This software violates SCO's intellectual property rights in UNIX
I'm sorry, what was it you were saying about "unsubstantiated allegations" a few sentences back?
If IBM wants customers to accept the risks of the GPL, it should indemnify them against that risk.
And if you want people to accept the risks of YOUR license, you should indemnify them against that risk. Hmm, but you're not doing that either, are you?
The continuing refusal to provide customer indemnification is the truest measure of IBM's belief in its recently filed claims.
Why do you continue to say that IBM should do things that you're unwilling to do yourself? How about "lead by example"?
SCO has shipped these products for many years, in some cases for nearly two decades, and this is the first time that IBM has ever raised an issue about patent infringement in these products.
So, it's OK for you to infringe on IBM's intellectual property, but it's not OK for someone else to allegedly infringe on yours? (Hint: IBM has provided proof that you're infringing - why do you not provide proof?)
if the only security a system has is based on the fact that nobody can see the code, I'd say that system is hosed. I highly doubt voting software would fall into this category.
OK, so you highly doubt it. What proof do you have to back up your suspicions?
None.
Because the software is closed source, you - as a member of the voting public, and arguable one of the most important players - have no proof that they have any sort of security at all.
That's pretty much the whole point.
It's unfortunate that obscuring code has taken on the negative connotation of "hiding bugs." That's not always the case.
You're right - it's also good for hiding design flaws. And that's all it's good for.
Keeping the inner workings of a system secret is a valid security measure
No, it isn't. Keeping the inner workings of a system secret does nothing but keep the inner workings secret. It does nothing to ensure the security of a product, and in fact reduces the security of the product, by reducing the number of people who might be able to find (and fix) flaws in the system, and by lulling the vendor into believing that they're doing something effective, when in fact they're not.
http://spf.pobox.com describes an elegant anti spam solution
No, it really doesn't. For starters, any site that starts off by saying "SMTP has a security hole in that it allows any sender to use any email address" is too clueless to know anything about SMTP. (Hint: it's not a security hole - it's there for a reason.)
domain owners designate sending mail exchangers in DNS, so that SMTP servers can distinguish legitimate mail from spam by verifying sender domain against client IP
Ahh, OK, so how does this stop spam? All it does is force a spammer to register and set up a domain before they send spam - which I hardly think will stop spammers in their tracks.
By charging $600 they make it seem like "stealing" linux is a really serious offense.
The thing is, how can they possibly claim this, when they're giving it away for free?!?!
I think Darl needs to improve the quality of the crack he's smoking.
There's just as much free Windows support out there as linux.
Not true.
I can (and do) support Linux for free for a number of friends/family members.
If there is a bug fix they need/want fixed, I can fix it (and have) for them because I have the source code.
Only MS can provide this level of support, and you have to pay BIG $$$ for it. Compare this with the number of people who can provide the same level of support for Linux. Then compare the number of people who would be able to do it for free.
Linux wins each time.
"How dare you counter our frivolous claims with an honest-to-goodness lawsuit based on real facts!?!?!"
I think locking down SMTP servers and requiring verified & correct return addresses would go a long way toward curbing spam.
OK, so imagine (in a perfect world) that everybody has 100% locked down SMTP servers, and there is an addition to SMTP that requires verified and correct return addresses on every email (regardless of the problems that such verification would cause.)
What's to stop a spammer from running his/her own mailserver (you know, like they do today), and providing 100% verified and correct email addresses on all the spam they send you?
The answer I've heard from people who've proposed the same thing as you is that you'd just start a blacklist..
So I ask: How is this any different from what we have today?
implement the technologies that are already out there
The problem is that spam is not a technological problem - it's a social one. And you can't solve a social problem with technology.
It's too bad that record companies are now "solving" the problem by giving us this "one volume fits all" compression now. The ideal solution might be for car stereos to start including some sort of compression circuitry so that you can hear more of a tune over the road noise, but you get to hear it in its full dynamic glory at home.
:o)
It's kinda funny, but I was thinking about this just the other day while listening to "Dragula" on the way to work..
After the first verse there's a 4 beat pause, and then a crash, and the crash has nowhere near the effect it should - I always find myself reaching for the volume knob and cranking it right at the pause..
If my car had compression circuitry, I'd probably turn it off
You have issues. Seriously.
And you're just too damn stupid for words.
You realize most EULAs cover distribution as the major point to the license, right?
No, they don't.
Go read some.
I did. Nowhere do they say that anything about the right to distribte copies of the software (except to reiterate that you can't.)
How does distributing not constitute using the software for something
How can you ask this? This question is so seriously flawed that I have to wonder how you managed to turn on your computer in the first place.
USING something is not the same way as DISTRIBUTING it, in the same way that DRIVING A CAR is not the same as SELLING it.
If I distribute it, I am using the contents of the software by placing it on some form of media and sending it off.
No, YOU MOST CERTAINLY ARE NOT. If the software (for example) is a spreadsheet, are you ENTERING DATA INTO IT?!?!?! NO!
Jeebus, how the hell do you manage to dress yourself in the morning?
And (again) you keep ignoring the parts of my argument that you simply can't refute - THE GPL EXPLICITLY DISCLAIMS any coverage regarding "use" of the software.
Because you don't think so.
And just because you think it is so doesn't mean that it is.
So, I guess all the lawyers who define it as a legal EULA are wrong
"ALL THE LAWYERS"!?!??! Which "ALL THE LAWYERS" are you talking about? Please, list "ALL THE LAWYERS" who have read and understood the GPL, and think that it's an EULA.
Certainly the LAWYERS AT THE EFF don't think it's an EULA. Where's your list of the ones who do?
That's because analogies are retarded and unneccessary.
Only to people like you who can't understand them, or can't refute them (or both.)
If you actually had a valid argument, you wouldn't need to use an analogy.
But I _DO_ have a valid argument - and used the analogy to support it. As someone else pointed out, if it was so flawed, you'd point out why it was so flawed.
Notice how the BSA goes after people who use software?
Notice how the BSA goes after people who illegaly copy software. Again, copying, not using. They don't care if you use it or not, they care if you copy it.
Incorrect. The GPL is an end-user license agreement.
No, you are incorrect. The GPL explicitly disavows being a USER agreement. It is a DISTRIBUTION agreement. There is a huge difference between using something and distributing it.
If they have software that infringes on the copyright and IP claims of another party, they will be liable for what is in their possession.
No, they won't. They received the software in good faith. I note how you conveniently dismissed my argument about the New York Times, as it directly covers this.
If they weren't copying anything, how did it get on their hard drive?
Copying for personal use (such as putting it on your hard drive) is expressly allowed under copyright law. (It's called 'fair use'.) Since they received the software in good faith, they would not be liable.
Notice how the RIAA doesn't go after people who download sogns via P2P? They go after the people who share the songs.
Again, copyright law does not cover use.
The GPL is a license.
True. And a fish is an animal, so therefore all animals are fishes.
It is the declarations of actions an individual is allowed to do with the software.
NO, IT MOST CERTAINLY IS NOT.
It is the declarations of actions an individual is allowed to do with regards to DISTRIBUTING the software it covers.
It EXPLICITLY DISCLAIMS any coverage regarding "use" of the software. (You know, 'USE' as in 'USER'.)
It _IS NOT_ , in ANY WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM, and "End USER License Agreement".
Re-read that..
Linux enduser license agreements are an 'as is' contract... Linux users aren't protected from copyright or intellectual-property infringement claims...
First, there are no "Linux enduser license agreements" (except perhaps the one from Caldera), so whoever wrote this knows jack about shit.
Second, even if there were Linux EULAs, it would still be irrelevant, because he's saying "the EULA doesn't protect you from copyright or IP claims" - all the while ignoring the fact that people would be immune anyway, as they're not copying anything.
If the New York Times got sued for plagarism and lost, would that make it's readers liable? Of course not. This is really no different.
at least one lawyer thinks users could be liable
No, actually - at least one lawyer, who doesn't have a clue about the facts in the case, thinks that an EULA (which doesn't exist) wouldn't stop liability, when standard property-rights laws would.
I work at a primarily Windows shop - our servers (except one) are all Linux, and the desktops (except mine) are all Windows. I've used Linux (exclusively) on my desktop for 5 years.
:o)
The job of IT is to support the organization, not cripple it.
But it's OK if the users cripple it? Sorry, that just doesn't fly.
If users are setting up insecure Linux machines, you work with them to bring them up to snuff.
No, you make them get management's permission, then you set it up securely for them.
Users should not be making decisions like this on their own. At a minimum, they need management's permission and knowledge, and management would weigh the pros and cons, and (hopefully) make an informed decision (in my workplace, that would entail management coming to ask me if it's OK - I'd say yes, of course
It's ultimately self-destructive if users are allowed to do whatever they want with company hardware, and expect IT to clean up after them if they're found out. Everybody should be working towards the same goal.
If this is so basic then why do SCO make such claims?
Because they have nothing to lose.
NOTHING about SCO's position makes sense. They're fucked, they know it, and they're trying a "hail mary" to see if they can stay afloat long enough to drive the share price up so they can dump their stock and have enough to retire on.
I don't think the minor semantic issues invalidate my point
It's not a "minor semantic issue".
If you buy a book, and it turns out that the author is guilty of plagarism, does that mean you're liable?
No, it doesn't. As long as you're not making copies of the book (which would be illegal anyway), the plagarized authour would have no legal recourse against you.
Software is more like a book than a stereo - it's covered by the same laws, in fact. So your argument doesn't hold water.
While I agree that the previous poster is overzealous, there is a kernel of truth in some of what he says.
You are IT. You are present to help workers get their damn work done, not to push some random personal agenda. If you wipe an entire system and kill that employee's work, you are a serious impediment to getting work done
In most companies, the standard OS is hardly a "personal agenda" - and the worker that installs a new OS on his/her computer without authorization is hardly "getting work done".
Most large companies I know don't allow you to keep your work on your local machine, as it makes all kinds of problems for backups, upgrades, and hardware trouble. Instead employees save all of their work to a central fileserver, which gets backed up on a regular basis. Re-imaging a machine is not a big deal. Even the place I work now (total of 20 employees) does this.
WTF does the OS have to do with this?
If the sysadmins don't know Linux, then they won't be able to fix the breakin.
The funny thing is that when I set it up I named it 'Joe' and then I set up the networking using dhcp. ... Yep, corporate dns now has an entry for joe.MyCompany.com!
You should have called it 'www'.
They're violating out copyright, as we violate others' copyrights.
To quote Tonto when he and the lone ranger were surrounded by cannibals - "What do you mean by 'we', Paleface?"
You may be, but _I_ am not violating anyone's copyright.